Literacy practices and sociocultural contexts have greatly defined
and influenced each other. The role language plays in mobilizing both
revolution and progress is well delineated in Congchao Hua's
article comparing language learning curriculum in China over three
decades, from the 1970s to the 2000s. The universality of the social and
political dimensions of literacy education becomes evident in any
context of time and place. Hua's study encourages further debates
and discussions of issues around language, education, society, and
culture.

**********

In 1975, a group of American scholars toured China and investigated
the philosophy and aims of education in China as well as its curriculum
practices. They reported that educational practices at all levels in
China were dominated by the Maoist ideology and closely combined with
manual labor (Karlson, 1976). Since the publication of their report,
almost 40 years have passed. During those decades, China has experienced
great social transformation, which can be seen manifested in school
literacy. The study reported here examined the primary school language
arts curriculum in 1978 and 2000 to cast light on the changes that have
taken place and to uncover the changing trends in early school literacy
in China.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Literacy and the Language Arts Curriculum

As "the vehicle of education" (Hladczuk & Eller,
1992, p. ix), literacy enables individuals to express and exchange
ideas, information, knowledge, and wisdom so as to "function fully
in society" (Feret & Smith, 2010, p. 38). To achieve this goal
involves the four literacy elements (Feret & Smith, 2010) of
reading, writing, speaking, and listening--all of which are related to
language. As pointed out by Braunger, Lewis, and Hagans (1997), language
development and literacy development are closely related, especially
during the period of time between birth and age 8 (Schickedanz, 1999).
Research has shown that delay in language learning in early childhood
may increase difficulty in learning literacy skills in later years
(Paulson et al., 2004). This strong connection between language and
literacy development lends support to the central position of the
language arts curriculum in primary school education in China.

As a major means for achieving literacy, the language arts
curriculum teaches primary school children more than just language.
According to Apthorp, Bodrova, Dean, and Florian (2001), a
standards-based language arts curriculum should balance between learning
about language (learning components of language); learning through
language (understanding the world through language); and language
learning (learning the four language skills of listening, speaking,
reading, and writing). These purposes of the language arts curriculum do
not simply lie in the acquisition and use of language, but also in the
acquisition of world knowledge (including factual information and
ideology). Moreover, another purpose of the language arts curriculum is
to build personality, specifically developing reflective, aesthetic, and
emotional dispositions (Eisner, 1976). Consequently, becoming literate
goes beyond simply mastering the four literacy processes of reading,
writing, speaking, and listening, to acquiring processes that are
considered valuable in a particular society or context (Tanriverd &
Apak, 2010).

Dynamic Nature of School Literacy

School literacy always reflects the power ideologies and beliefs
(Campano, 2007) of a particular nation at a particular time. This social
and political nature of school literacy is revealed through curriculum
emphases, which are dynamic and vary according to the economic,
cultural, and nationalistic factors (Wei & Thomas, 2006) that are
influential at a specific time and the literacies and pedagogies
relevant to a specific cultural context (Medina & Rocio Costa,
2010).

Concerning the changing tendency of school literacy, Fterniati and
Spinthourakis (2006) and Wei and Thomas (2006) have found that school
literacy is moving from the traditional higher-end closed paradigm to
the more flexible lower-end open paradigm. However, Fterniati and
Spinthourakis' (2006) study focuses on the language arts curriculum
in Greece, whereas Wei and Thomas' (2006) study examines the
changes of the chemistry curriculum in junior high schools in China. So
far, reports on the changes affecting early school literacy policy in
China are lacking. The current study addresses this research gap by
investigating the language arts curriculum in China.

INVESTIGATING CHANGES TO EARLY SCHOOL LITERACY IN CHINA

This qualitative study investigated the changes to early school
literacy approaches in China, as revealed by the rationale, general
purposes, and specific objectives of primary school language arts
curriculum over the past three decades. The curriculum documents studied
revealed particular features of early school literacy, both explicit and
implicit.

The particular curriculum documents analyzed were two versions of
the syllabi of primary school language arts curriculum released by the
Ministry of Education (MOE) in 1978 and 2000. The 1978 syllabus states
the rationale of the curriculum, general purposes of the curriculum, and
specific objectives for each grade (Grades 1-5). The 2000 syllabus,
still in use today, clearly states the rationale and the general
purposes of the curriculum, but specifies objectives for lower and
higher grades instead of for each grade. To solve this problem, the
teaching guides for Book 1 and Book 2 (textbooks for Grade 1) were
analyzed to complement the 2000 syllabus.

To reveal the changing trends in early school literacy in China,
three analytic comparisons were conducted. The first was between the
prefaces of the two syllabi to find out the changes to the rationale for
the curriculum. The second was between the "Goals and
Requirements" (1978) and "Goals of Teaching" (2000) to
find out the changes to the general purposes of the curriculum. The
third was between the specific requirements for Grade 1 (1978) and the
specific objectives for lower grades (2000) plus the teaching guides for
Books 1 and 2 to pinpoint changes to the specific objectives of the
curriculum. Here, only specific objectives for Grade 1 were compared,
recognizing that the changes to specific objectives may follow the same
pattern for all grades.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Changes to Rationale

Rationale of the 1978 Language Arts Curriculum. In the preface of
the 1978 syllabus, the rationale of primary school language arts
curriculum is expressed as follows:

Language arts is an important subject in the primary school.
According to our great leader Chairman Mao, once students have learned
to read and write, they have mastered the most useful basic tool, which
is important for learning revolutionary theories and all other sorts of
knowledge as well as doing revolutionary work ... the students should
learn language arts well so as to meet the needs of the four
modernizations. (Ministry of Education [MOE], 1978)

This rationale from the 1970s reveals that the Chinese language was
viewed as a basic tool of revolution, which was the major political
concern of the time. Learning the Chinese language was linked to the
four "modernizations" of industry, agriculture, national
defense, and science and technology, which were key to the economic
goals of China in the 1970s.

Rationale of the 2000 Language Arts Curriculum. In the preface of
the 2000 syllabus, the rationale of primary school language arts
curriculum is found in the following statements:

Language is the most important tool of communication and a
significant part of human culture. The primary school language arts
curriculum is a basic subject during the nine-year compulsory education
in that it nurtures pupils' morality and literacy, promotes their
learning of other subjects and their continuous learning, spreads the
national culture, and improves citizenry. (MOE, 2000)

Obviously, in the new century, the Chinese language has a different
role to play than was pursued in the 1970s. It is no longer a tool of
revolution, but rather is a tool of communication and a part of human
culture. While the 1978 rationale linked the curriculum with political
and economic concerns only, the 2000 rationale takes the potential
functions of language into full consideration. Consequently, the
language arts curriculum is associated with morality, continuous
learning, national culture, and citizenry.

Changes to General Purposes

General Purposes of the 1978 Language Arts Curriculum. In the
"goals and requirements" section of the 1978 syllabus, the
general purposes of the primary school language arts curriculum are
presented as follows:

The language arts curriculum must entail the teaching of Maoism in
a complete and accurate manner throughout the primary school:

The goal of primary school language arts curriculum is to enable
pupils to know Chinese characters, read, and write articles in an
accurate, clear, vivid style;

The requirement of primary school language arts curriculum is to
get pupils to master the most commonly used Chinese characters to lay a
foundation for reading and writing. (MOE, 1978)

The first purpose from the 1978 document centers upon the political
function of language and emphasizes the instillation of Maoist ideology,
the dominant ideology in China in the late 1970s. This conforms to
Karlson's (1976) finding that the teaching of Maoism began in
primary school in the 1970s. The second and third purposes stress
reading (mainly reading aloud) and writing; in the 1970s, there was a
high illiteracy rate in China yet political propaganda in written
language was quite common and important in everyone's daily life.
It is worth mentioning that the requirement for writing was rather high
and possibly even over-demanding for primary school pupils. Only a small
number of Chinese people received school education in the 1970s and many
of those who did ended their formal education after primary school.
Therefore, high-demanding tasks more suitable to a middle-school level
were shifted to primary schools.

General Purposes of the 2000 Language Arts Curriculum. In the 2000
syllabus, the general purposes of the curriculum are expressed in the
"goals of teaching" section as follows:

The aim of primary school language arts curriculum is to promote
individual development and lay a foundation for their future life, work
and life-long learning;

This curriculum also aims at cultivating pupils' love for the
national language and culture, cultivating their ability to understand
and use the national language, developing their basic skills in
listening, speaking, reading and writing as well as helping them form
proper language learning habits. This curriculum entails the teaching of
patriotism, socialist morality and scientific thinking, and cultivates
creativity, aesthetic disposition and healthy personality. (MOE, 2000)

Unlike the 1978 syllabus, the 2000 syllabus puts individual
development as a primary purpose for literacy. All four language skills
(i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and writing) are equally stressed
and language use is emphasized. This is another sharp contrast with the
1978 syllabus, which only stresses the development of reading and
writing skills. Moreover, political instruction no longer dominates the
curriculum; patriotism and socialist morality share equal status with
other personal qualities, such as scientific thinking, creativity,
aesthetic disposition, and healthy personality.

Changes to Specific Objectives

Specific Objectives of the 1978 Language Arts Curriculum. The
objectives for Grade 1 are presented in the 1978 syllabus as follows:

Master the onsets, rhymes and tones in pinyin; learn Mandarin;

Be able to recognize and understand about 700 characters and use
most of them;

Be able to read aloud and recite texts and understand them under
teachers' guidance;

Be able to answer teachers' questions correctly and say or
write a few sentences describing pictures. (MOE, 1978)

The first objective includes the rather vague goal to "learn
Mandarin." The reason for the vagueness is that Mandarin was not
popular in the 1970s. As radios were generally a luxury and few
households owned TV sets, a lack of communication restricted the spread
of Mandarin. Even Chairman Mao spoke his Hunan dialect on all occasions.
The second objective emphasizes the recognition and understanding of
Chinese characters, but does not emphasize use of the characters. The
third objective, which stresses reading aloud and recitation, assumes
the central role of textbooks and teachers. The fourth objective
addresses the development of speaking skills, but limited to answering
teachers' questions and describing pictures. It can be inferred
that learning in the 1970s was generally passive; classes were teacher-
and textbook-centered, and pupils had little chance to express
themselves.

Specific Objectives of the 2000 Language Arts Curriculum. In the
2000 syllabus and teaching guides for Books 1 and 2, the specific
objectives for Grade 1 are stated as follows:

Master the onsets, rhymes and tones in pinyin; be able to read
syllables correctly and recognize upper case letters; remember the
Chinese Pinyin Alphabet;

Be able to recognize about 950 characters and write 350 of them;

Learn word and sentence meanings in context and real life; learn to
read aloud accurately, fluently and with feelings; learn to read
silently and think at the same time; be able to recite at least 30 poems
and articles; be able to read simple child readers and understand the
main idea; know common punctuations;

Develop an interest in writing sentences and writing down their own
words;

Be able to listen to others attentively and recount a short speech
or a simple event; learn to speak Mandarin; be able to talk coherently;
be willing to communicate with others in a confident and polite manner.
(MOE, 2000; Primary School Language Arts Office, 2008; Yan, 2008)

Compared with the 1978 syllabus, the 2000 syllabus has a higher
requirement on Pinyin. Apart from the ability to read Pinyin, Grade 1
pupils are also required to remember the whole Chinese pinyin alphabet.
This is because Pinyin has been gradually popularized since the 1970s
and is now used widely. Also, the 2000 syllabus requires Grade 1 pupils
to learn more characters (950 instead of 700). For reading, Grade 1
pupils are encouraged to learn the meaning of words and sentences as
related to context and real life, instead of passively reading and
reciting texts. In the new century, the illiteracy rate is much lower
and media much more developed. As a result, family support and resources
are easily accessible, which makes it possible for pupils to learn words
and meanings outside of the school environment. Moreover, thinking and
out-of-class reading are included in the 2000 syllabus. In comparison
with the 1978 syllabus, the requirement for writing is lowered to merely
developing pupils' interest in writing. However, speaking and
Mandarin are highlighted, in that pupils should not only learn to speak
Mandarin, but also learn to use it to express themselves and communicate
with others effectively. In short, with emphasis on the development of
reading, speaking, and thinking abilities, the 2000 syllabus offers
Grade 1 pupils more opportunities for self-expression and more freedom
in linguistic development.

The Changing Trends

Based on the above comparisons, early school literacy in China has
undergone significant changes in terms of Apthorp et al.'s (2001)
framework of literacy curriculum--learning about language, learning
through language, and language learning.

In terms of learning about language, there has been a shift of
focus from static knowledge about language to its dynamic, everyday use.
Although the comparison of specific objectives stated in the two syllabi
reveals that pupils in the new century are required to learn more about
Pinyin and characters, a more significant change in the 2000 syllabus is
the far greater emphasis on language use through silent reading,
talking, and thinking. As far as Mandarin is concerned, the 1978
syllabus requires pupils to learn it, which is a rather vague objective;
the 2000 syllabus, by contrast, specifies that students should speak
Mandarin and use it effectively in communication.

As for learning through language, the focus has shifted from
political concerns to individual development, as is revealed by
comparisons of the rationale and the general purposes of the language
arts curriculum presented in the two syllabi. While Maoism dominates the
1978 rationale and general purposes, individual development, interest,
creativity, scientific thinking, aesthetic disposition, healthy
personality, and communication are the keywords of the 2000 syllabus.

As regards language learning, there is a tendency toward lowering
requirements about writing, while raising requirements for reading and
speaking, as revealed in the comparison of specific objectives for Grade
1. The 1978 syllabus mainly focuses on reading aloud, reciting, and
writing, with little mention of speaking; by contrast, the 2000 syllabus
has lower requirements on writing, but much higher requirements on
reading (both reading aloud and silent reading) and speaking.

In summary, these changes reveal that literacy is no longer
considered something sacred that requires painstaking efforts to attain
(as Mao Zedong's words, quoted in the 1978 syllabus, indicated),
but has become commonplace in the Chinese people's everyday lives.
Similarly, Fterniati and Spinthourakis (2006) and Wei and Thomas (2006)
also found that school literacy is changing, becoming a more flexible,
open paradigm. Despite the above-mentioned changing trends, however,
teaching socialist ideology remains an important part of early school
literacy in China, as claimed by Karlson (1976), although the
connotation of the ideology has changed over the years.

CONCLUSION

No curriculum changes happen in a social vacuum (Wei & Thomas,
2006). It is widely known that dramatic social changes have affected the
Chinese people's material and spiritual lives since implementation
of the reform and opening-up policy in the late 1970s. This might
explain the changes to primary school language arts curriculum over the
three decades under investigation. Another explanation for the changes
might be the introduction and application of influential language
teaching approaches, especially the communicative language teaching
approach. As the language arts curriculum is a core component of early
school literacy, the changes identified in this study reflect changes in
early school literacy in China during the same period of time. However,
such changes in early school literacy do not take place overnight.

As this study investigated only two syllabi, the results reported
here do not reflect all the changes that have taken place in early
school literacy between 1978 and 2000, but rather show the changing
trends. Further efforts are needed to investigate the syllabi released
in 1986 and 1992, as well as the corresponding textbooks, to trace the
changes. In addition, it is also necessary to explore other curricula
during the same period to gain a better view of the changes to early
school literacy. Taking everything into consideration, this small-scale
study reveals only a small corner of the iceberg. Nevertheless, this
small portion offers some significant insight regarding the texture of
the whole.

Wei, B., & Thomas, G. P. (2006). An examination of the change
of the junior secondary school chemistry curriculum in the P. R. China:
In the view of scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 36,
403-418.